Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRIGSBY & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 25-cv-00892-AGT

Plaintiff,

ORDER ON MOTION FOR LEAVE

v. TO FILE MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY

COMPANY, Re: Dkt. No. 50

Defendant.

On October 27, 2025, six days after the Court stayed this case pending resolution of

proceedings before the state workers’ compensation appeals board, Plaintiff filed a motion

for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 50. Eighteen days later, on November 14,

2025, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. Dkt. 51. For avoidance of doubt, the Court concludes

that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion for leave.

“Once a notice of appeal takes effect, the district court loses jurisdiction over the

matter placed before the appellate court.” United Nat. Ins. Co. v. R&D Latex Corp., 242 F.3d

1102, 1109 (9th Cir. 2001). If, however, a motion for reconsideration is pending when the

appeal is filed, the district court retains jurisdiction to consider it. Id.

Here, no motion for reconsideration was filed. Under this District’s local rules, “[nJo

party may notice a motion for reconsideration without first obtaining leave of Court to file

the motion.” Civil L.R. 7-9(a). Plaintiff requested leave but didn’t obtain it before appealing.

So, when Plaintiff noticed the appeal and there was no motion for reconsideration pending,

the Court lost jurisdiction. R&D Latex, 242 F.3d at 1109.

Because the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the motion for leave, the Court re-

quests that the Clerk of the Court clear the gavel next to the motion on CM/ECF. If war-

ranted, Plaintiff may refile the motion after the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2026

Alex G. Tse

United States Magistrate Judge